[2] The validity of a collective agreement signed and sealed by both parties to the collective agreement

[2] The purpose of Article 31(1) of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, which provides for documentizing a collective agreement and signing and sealing both parties, is to ensure the authenticity and clarity of a collective agreement by clearly considering that labor-management relations regulated by the collective agreement are collective and continuous, and at the same time by identifying the parties' final intent at the same time, taking into account that labor-management relations regulated by the collective agreement are collective and continuous. Therefore, if the authenticity and clarity of a collective agreement are guaranteed, even if both parties to the collective agreement sign and affix their seals without signing and sealing it, the collective agreement cannot

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, it is just for the court below to hold a meeting on July 21, 1997 that the elderly group belonging to the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") which was organized by the majority of the workers of the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") such as non-party company's non-party company's default decision on payment due to the financial institution's default order, etc., and decided to implement a self-help plan with the contents that include (i) bonus, monthly and paid leave, (ii) the return of bonus, monthly and paid leave expenses, (iii) the non-party company's participation in the production activity, and (iv) the formation of the committee and the fund for the normalization of management, etc. on July 22, 1997, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or lack of reasons due to the violation of the rules of evidence. The ground of appeal as to this part is rejected.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. According to Article 326(1) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002), a document may submit the original, original, or certified certified certified copy in lieu of the original, or a copy itself as an original. If the other party acknowledges the existence or establishment of the original and objects thereto, a copy may be submitted in lieu of the original. In such a case, the same effect as the original has the same effect as the case where the original was submitted. On the other hand, where a copy is submitted as an original, the copy shall not be deemed as an independent documentary evidence, but it shall be recognized that there exists the same original as the original by evidence and that the original has been duly established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da4508, Apr. 28, 1992; 2008; 305Da396497, Dec. 36, 1995; 209Da9794975, Apr. 19, 197, 1997

According to the records, the non-party company: (a) opened an extended meeting on July 21, 197; (b) opened a joint meeting of the non-party 1 to carry out the self-help plan including bonus, monthly allowance, and return of the following leave; (c) opened the above self-help plan through the press conference on July 2, 1997; (d) the non-party 3 and the non-party 4, who were delegated by the representative director of the non-party company and the non-party 9, signed a copy of the 7th anniversary of the 7th anniversary of the 7th anniversary of the 7th anniversary of the 7th anniversary of the 7th anniversary of the 7th anniversary of the 7th anniversary of the 7th anniversary of the 7th anniversary of the 7th anniversary of the 7th anniversary of the 7th anniversary of the 197th anniversary of the 7th anniversary of the 7th anniversary of the 197th anniversary of the 7th anniversary of the 7th anniversary of the 19th anniversary of the 7th anniversary of the 197th of the 3rd of the 3rd.

If there are such circumstances, the original as evidence No. 7 (A copy of Labor Union Joint Resolution) exists, and it can be sufficiently known that the original has been duly formed, so the court below's approval of the formal evidence of the above document is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, or in the misapprehension of the legal principles, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. The ground of appeal pointing this out is rejected.

B. The purport of Article 31(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, which provides for documentizing a collective agreement and signing and sealing of both parties, is to ensure the authenticity and clarity of a collective agreement by clarifying the parties to the agreement, taking into account that labor-management relations regulated by the collective agreement are collective and continuous, and at the same time confirming the parties' final intent at the same time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Ma605, Mar. 10, 1995; 99Da72422, Jan. 19, 200; 200Da30516, Jan. 19, 201; 2000Da30516, Jan. 19, 200).

In addition, the parties to a collective agreement are the "employer or its organization", and among them, the "user" means the company's individual in case of an individual enterprise, or the corporation or company in case of a corporation or company. However, the parties to the collective agreement are often responsible for management or the company's interest, and the collective agreement is valid in case where the collective agreement has been concluded by signing and sealing on the written collective agreement by the employer after conducting the collective agreement with the delegation of the employer.

In accordance with the above legal principles, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the non-party company and the non-party union did not have a duty to pay the above bonus, etc., and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the elements and effects of the collective agreement, as it constitutes a collective agreement on the reduction of wages in light of its contents. The agreement of July 29, 1997 between the non-party company and the non-party union as of July 29, 1997, on the ground that the agreement of July 29, 1997 constitutes a collective agreement on the reduction of wages and the payment of bonuses under the former collective agreement (amended by May 1, 1998) between the non-party company and the non-party union since the agreement was lawfully changed under the above agreement, and therefore, the non-party company did not have a duty to pay the above bonus, etc., and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it cannot be viewed that there

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)